New American Patriot's Bible, reviewed briefly in this blog post (more in this one) by Greg Boyd, local Evangelical mega-church pastor.
Ugh. I can hardly believe that someone at Thomas Nelson let this thing slip through. From Boyd's description it sounds like a warrior Jesus wrapped in the American flag. But then, so was "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" back in the 1860s. Pairing religion with political ends is not new.
Ugh. I can hardly believe that someone at Thomas Nelson let this thing slip through. From Boyd's description it sounds like a warrior Jesus wrapped in the American flag. But then, so was "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" back in the 1860s. Pairing religion with political ends is not new.
If I've learned anything these last two quarters in Church History it's that anytime there is an alliance between government and religion, between church and state, it's an unholy one. (at least if human beings are making the decisions, it is...) One side or the other gets the upper hand, and makes the other side do its bidding... and then things get ugly. Emperor Constantine, you did the church no favors.
Second: The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into the War on American Ideals, discussed in this program from an MPR.org broadcast yesterday. It's essentially a rallying cry to prosecute the Bush administration for crimes against humanity (for authorizing the use of torture on enemy combatants.) Please. Honestly, don't we have enough to deal with as a culture as it is, without having to spend time trying to assuage our national guilt? Where do you even start with that? Not on this issue, I don't think.
Understand: I am in agreement that torture, however and to whomever applied, is never justified. Both the church (to its shame and against its nature) and the amoral, secular state (consistent with its nature) have been full of excesses in this area over the centuries. And here we have two books - one which tends to support a "just" use of violence, and the other which tends to excoriate those who do. How do you reconcile these views of morality?
Hm. I'm reminded once again of Catholic Social Teaching, which opposes both the use of torture and the practice of abortion. Like I said in a previous post - it's an equal opportunity offender of ideological purity on both left and right. :)
Not to mention that it doesn't support vengeance against those who commit either offense. Instead, it urges reconciliation - between people, and with God. It even has a sacrament devoted to the latter.
That reminds me, I think it's time for me to go again.
Second: The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into the War on American Ideals, discussed in this program from an MPR.org broadcast yesterday. It's essentially a rallying cry to prosecute the Bush administration for crimes against humanity (for authorizing the use of torture on enemy combatants.) Please. Honestly, don't we have enough to deal with as a culture as it is, without having to spend time trying to assuage our national guilt? Where do you even start with that? Not on this issue, I don't think.
Understand: I am in agreement that torture, however and to whomever applied, is never justified. Both the church (to its shame and against its nature) and the amoral, secular state (consistent with its nature) have been full of excesses in this area over the centuries. And here we have two books - one which tends to support a "just" use of violence, and the other which tends to excoriate those who do. How do you reconcile these views of morality?
But what I really thought about was this: those who take offense at the principles and methods of the opposing side of an ideological debate, essentially adopt those same methods in defense of their own principles. Each side is willing to use the coercion inherent in the rule of law, and a unilateral imposition of a moral standard (theirs) to further their own cause. It's not the methods that offend... it's the cause in which they're used.
So when I got the chance, the following letter made its way to MPR (since they ostensibly have a forum for speaking out. Whether it gets published remains to be seen. Not so far.)
So when I got the chance, the following letter made its way to MPR (since they ostensibly have a forum for speaking out. Whether it gets published remains to be seen. Not so far.)
Driving back to work from lunch today, I caught much of the Q&A for Ms. Mayer and Mr. Mondale's lecture at UofM. What struck me was the consensus presumption by both speakers and audience of the immorality of torture used on enemy combatants.
Ms. Mayer was aghast at the notion that trained psychologists working for the military would not only assist in the application of some techniques, but design them. The thought of a doctor teaching others how to best accomplish this destructive end was reprehensible to her.
[note: one of them defends himself on NPR here]
I wondered if she feels the same shock and disgust at the notion of trained physicians actually perfecting the techniques and then teaching others how to perform abortions. Surely there are great segments of our national and state population who feel that abortion is every bit as immoral as torture, though they were likely not in the lecture audience in great numbers.
Further, there was discussion of possible criminal action against those who perpetrated these atrocities, and some sought to punish the evildoers (those in the Bush administration, particularly) even if the acts were "legal".
I wonder, would those same people who hope for criminal convictions for torturers have any problem with those who seek criminal convictions for abortionists, on the same grounds - that the act is immoral, whether or not it is "legal"?
Perhaps we should not be too quick to seek retribution for what we consider to be the moral failings of others, especially when there is no national or state consensus on just what should be considered immoral.
Hm. I'm reminded once again of Catholic Social Teaching, which opposes both the use of torture and the practice of abortion. Like I said in a previous post - it's an equal opportunity offender of ideological purity on both left and right. :)
Not to mention that it doesn't support vengeance against those who commit either offense. Instead, it urges reconciliation - between people, and with God. It even has a sacrament devoted to the latter.
That reminds me, I think it's time for me to go again.
No comments:
Post a Comment